This is a version of Pascal's mugging.

How do you figure? I can see the relationship -- the discussion of vanishingly small probabilities. The difference, however, is that Pascal's Mugging attempts to apply those small probabilities to deciding a specific action.

There is a categorical difference, I feel, between stating that a thing could occur and stating that a thing is occurring. After all; if there were an infinite number of Muggings, at least one of them conceivably could be actually telling the truth.

And also, given what we know of the universe, I don't think there is a method of becoming trapped with zero chance of escape. Trapped for a very long period, maybe, but not eternally.

s/eternally/"the remaining history of the universe"/, then. The problem remains equivalent as a thought-experiment. The point being -- as middle-aged suicides themselves demonstrate: there is, at some level, in every conscious agent's decision-making processes, a continuously ongoing decision as to whether it would be better to continue to exist, or to cease existing.

Being denied that capacity for choice, it seems highly plausible that over a long enough timeline, nearly anyone should eventually have a problem with this state of affairs.